WeTrack Enterprise MCP Server

wetrack_create_organisation

Creates a new organisation with required name, contact email, and primary contact person. Accepts optional slug and phone for additional details.

Instructions

Create a new organisation.

Args: name: Organisation name e.g. 'Vithi IT Solutions'. email: Contact email e.g. 'contact@vithi.com'. contact_name: Primary contact person e.g. 'Jane Doe'. slug: URL slug e.g. 'vithi'. phone: Phone number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`slug`	No
`email`	Yes
`phone`	No
`contact_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, response structure, or any potential errors. For a write operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured. It leads with the action, then lists parameters with examples in a clear list format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers all input parameters with examples, which is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call. However, it lacks any notes on uniqueness constraints (e.g., slug) or potential side effects, but given the output schema and the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing concrete examples for each parameter ('name: Organisation name e.g. 'Vithi IT Solutions''), which adds meaning beyond bare property names. It maps all five parameters and clarifies expected formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Create a new organisation' with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from other create tools by the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are clear, so an agent can identify its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_organisations or update_project. No context is given about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative with no usage conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server